5Tf 


LIBRARY 

®lvf0lo^ical  Seminary, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J 

No.  Case,  Pj 1 ^ i 

No.  Shelf,  

No.  Book,-^—- / :::- 

;^.;s=sss 


jFrotn  the  Rev.  W.  B.  SPRAGUE,  D.D. 


Sept:  1839.  ^ 


^Pt'Offve  Vm,>„tion. 


Vnl.  ^ 


* 


* 

p 


r . 


* .' ' 


' * 


•• ,)  • feS*'- " • ^ Ij- 


15“ 


4'.'<  " .■  ' - ■•:  ',1 


. • -*  * *' 


'A? 


'<*:■ 


f •>■**£*  ,» 

*»;  • 


X •'# 


• V.  ' -•  * , 


Mr’.. 


' ■■  i:-’ : :am  ■ 


i' 


':  • - . ' • ••: 

V-  ■■.  - ' ' “'Wi  , 

' ivt-  ■»  • 


% .- 


>{■•;••  ‘ -,  ■■■ 

♦ 4b. 


I 

FSi  '•  i.-  ./'*. 


■ >.  -*. 


,i‘ 


ft  / 


5 


letter 

F R O M ‘ — 

GRANVILLE  SHARP,  Esq^ 

O F 

LONDON, 

TO  THE 

MARYLAND  SOCIETY 

FOR  promoting  THE 

abolition  of  slavery, 

AND  THE 

Relief  of  Free  Negroes  and  Others,  unlawfully 
HELD  IN  Bondage. 


Published  by  Order  of  the  Society. 


B L T I M 0 R E: 

Prlnud  by  YUNDT  and  PATTON,  In  CanvEai-STREEi. 


m.dcc.xciii. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


^HE  following  pages  contain  the  Pojifcript  of  a Letter 
written  by  Granville  Sharp,  Efquire^  of  London, 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Maryland  Society  for  promoting 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  Iffc. 

The  author  has  calculated  his  obfervations,  principally, 
for  the  prcfent  actual  ft  ate  of  the  Britifh  Colonies,  where 
Jlavery  is  tolerated  by  law.  They  were  once  more  applicable 
to  the  condition  of  thefe  States,  and  it  is  matter  of  deep  and 
ferious  regret,  that  their  pertinency  hi  any  degree  continues. 
But  the  glorious  American  revolution,  which  gave  to  people  of 
one  complexion  independence  and  liberty,  urihappily  left  thofe 
of  another  to  groan  under  the  weight  of  the  moft  cruel  and  re- 
morfelefs  Jlavery.  The  mind  that  can  exercife  unprejudiced 
reafon,  and  all  who  regard  the  Will  of  Heaven,  will  abhor 
the  abfurd  dfcrimination.  Still  Jlavery  exijts,  and,  in  the 
caje  of  Jlaves  efcaping  from  their  majiers,  the  friends  of 
univerfal  liberty  are  often  embarrajjed  in  their  conduct,  by  a 
confid  between  their  principles  and  the  obligations  impofed 
by  unwife,  and  perhaps  unconjlitutional,  laws.  Senjtble  of 
the  delicacy  of  their  Jituation  and  the  difficulties  they  have 
to  Jiruggle  with,  the  Maryland  Society  have  been  extremely 
circumfped  in  their  condud,  and  have  endeavoured  to  avoid 
alarming  the  Jlave-holder,  or  interfering  in  any  manner  with 
the  laws  of  property.  The  produdion,  however,  of  a great 
and  refpedable  name,  founded  in  reafon  and  revealed  reli- 
gion, and  on  a fubjed  daily  brought  into  view  by  interejiing 
occurrences  in  the  Southern  States,  cannot  offend  the  enlight- 
ened citizens  of  a free  country.  Many  will  colled  from  his 
learning  and  deep  refe arches,  much  ujeful  information,  and 
all  will  find  ample  matter  for  ferious  contemplation. 


LETTER,  kc. 


LETTER,  &c. 


A REM  ARK  which  I wrote  many  years  ago,  refped- 
ing  the  illegality  of  taking  up  “ flaves  that  had 
“ elcaped  from  their  mailers,”  had  been  ufeful  (I  was  in- 
formed) to  fome  friends  of  humanity  in  America,  in  their 
endeavours  to  protedl  thofe  poor  opprefled  people.  I can- 
not now  find  a copy  of  that  paper,  but  the  argument 
was  chiefly  built  on  a reference  to  a text  in  Deut.  xxiii. 
15,  16. — “ Thou  lhalt  not  deliver  unto  his  mailer  the 
“ fervant  which  is  efcaped  from  his  mailer  unto  thee  : 
“ He  lhall  dwell  with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  the  place 
“ which  he  JJ^all  choofe”  (manifellly  as  a freeman)  “ in 
“ one  of  thy  gates  where  it  liketh  him  hejl : thou  lhalt 
“ not  opprefs  him.”  This,  I obferved,  was  no  part  of 
the  abrogate  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews ; but  manifellly 
a moral  law,  becaufe  the  reafon  of  it  Hill  remains,  fo  that 
it  mull  be  of  indifpenfible  obligation  as  long  as  the  hate- 
ful opprelfions  of  flave-holders  afford  us  any  occafions  of 
exerdfing  this  duty  to  God  of  protefting  the  Haves  that 
efcape  from  their  mailers ; and,  confequently,  I afferted, 
that  any  colonial  law,  which  oppofes  this  ordinance  of 
God,  by  ordering  the  arrelling,  and  delivering  up  run- 
away flaves ; or  which,  in  any  way,  tends  to  deprive  them 
of  due  legal  protedlion,  is,  of  courfe,  to  be  deemed  “ a 
“ corruption,  null  and  void  in  itfelf,”  as  being  contrary 
to  the  fecond  foundation  of  Englilh  law.  This  neceffary 
confequence  I urged  from  a well  known  maxim  of  the 
Englilh  law  refpetling  llatutes  (a£ls  of  affembly,  or  adls 
of  parliament)  “ nec  contra  rationem,  nec  contra  legem  di^ 
vinam'*  (llatuta)  “ exillunt.” — (Dodl.  et  Stud.  c.  10.) — 
That  “ llatutes  exill  not  aj]rainll  reafon,  nor  ao;ainll  the 

divine 


[ 4 ] 


divine  law.''  And  that  “ an  unjufl;  law  Is  not  law." — 

“ Lex  injufla  non  ell  lex.”  (Prin.  Leg.  et  Aiquit.) — And 
again,  that  “ thefe  two  laws,”  (viz.  the  law  of  reafon,  and 
the  law  divine)  “ cannot  abate,  or  turn  afide.” — “ Hae 
duoe  leges  declinari  not  polTunt.” — (Dod.  et  Stud.  c.  17.) 

But  I have  fince  had  occafion  to  regard  thefe  two  fun- 
damental laws  of  the  Englifh  conftitution  with  ftill  more 
awful  attention  ; and  therefore  I mull  farther  remark,  that 
the  hrft  foundation,  the  law  of  reafon  (as  including  all  the 
laws  of  nature,  juflice  and  natural  right)  is  certainly  to  be 
deemed  “ the  law  of  God,”  as  well  as  the  fecond  foun- 
dation, the  divine  precepts  in  the  holy  fcriptures ; becaufe 
the  former  is  defined., by  high  legal  authority,  to  be  “ the 
“ law  written  upon  the  heart  of  man,”  (and  of  courfe  is' 
the  law  of  the  Creator)  which  “ cannot  therefore  be  ob- 
“ literated,  nor  changed,  by  time  or  place,  but  ought, 

“ every  where,  and  among  all  men,  to  be  maintained, 

“ becaufe  ibe  laws  of  nature  are  immutable" — “ Lex  ra- 
“ tionis  in  corde  fcribitur,”  (which  mull  therefore  be  at- 
tributed to  the  Creator)  ‘‘  ideo  deleri  non  poteft,  nec 
“ recipit  mutationem,  ex  loco  nec  tempore,  fed  ubique 
“ et  inter  omnes  homines  fervari  debit ; nam  jura  natu- 
“ ralia  immutabilia  funt."  (Doft.  et  Stud.  c.  2.  p.  5.) 

This  amply  demonftrates  the  propriety  of  declaring  the 
law  of  reafon  to  be  the  firff  foundation  of  Englifli  law,  as 
being  “ the  law  of  God,  written  (as  it  were)  on  the  heart 
“ of  man.” — It  is  that  “ knowledge  of  good  and  evil  in 
“ man”  which  may  fairly  be  deemed  a participation  of 
the  “ divine  wifdom,"  or  of  Chriji  himfelf,  that  true 
“ light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
“ world,”  (John  i.  9.)  and  of  courfe  it  renders  every  r 

man  obnoxious,  through  the  knowledge  of  right  and  law, 
to  the  divine  vengeance  for  difobcdience ! Our  firfl  pa- 
rents wilfully  affumed  this  knowledge,  contrary  to  an  ex- 
prefs  command  of  their  Creator,  (being  deluded  by  the 
fpiritual  enemy)  and  thereby  entailed  death  and  condem- 
nation on  all  their  poflerity,  laying  them  under  an  abfo- 

lute 


[ 5 ] 


lute  neceffity  to  obtain  redemption  by  a dill  farther  parti- 
cipation of  the  fame  “ divine  wifdom,”  or  “ word  of 
“ God.” 

There  is  alfo  another  legal  term  or  title  for  this  firft 
foundation  of  law,  viz.  “ the  eternal  law,”  which  in  our 
books  is  properly  defined  to  mean  exadUy  the  fame  autho- 
rity as  the  “ law  of  reafon,”  i.  e.  “ The  fupreme  reafon 
“ of  divine  wifdom,  by  which  God  wills  that  all  things 
“ created  by  him,  be  moved  and  directed  to  a good  and 
4 “ proper  end.” — “ I.ex  seterna  nihil  aliud  eft  quam  ipfa 

“ fumnia  ratio  giibernationis  rerum  in  Deo,  five  ilia  fumma 
“ ratio  divinee  fapientiee,  qua  vult  Deus  omnia  a fecon- 
“ dita  moveri  et  dirigi,  ad  bonum  efc  debitum  finem,”  &c. 
(Dodl.  etStud.  c.  i.  p.  2.)  And  again; — The  “ law  eter~ 
“ nal  under  another  defcription  is  called  a perpetual  and 
“ conftant  will  to  give  to  every  one  his  right.”  “ Lex 
“ seterna  fub  alia  defcriptione  dicitur  perpetua  et  conftans 
“ voluntas  jus  fuum  unicuiqiie  tribuens ;”  (ibid.)  Here, 
then,  we  find  an  unmoveable  foundation  of  juftice,  of 
“ right,”  of  “ the  rights  of  man,”  of  “ righteoufnefs,” 
of  “ the  law  of  nature,”  &c.  for  all  thefe  terms  are  pa- 
rallel, and  are  neceflarily  included  in  the  law  of  reafon, 
or  eternal  law,  which  is,  very  properly,  therefore,  called 
“ the  jirjl  law.'' — “ Lex  etiam  aterna  dicitur  lex  prima, 
“ et  bene  dicitur  prima,  nam  fuit  ante  omncs  alias  leges  : 
“ et  omnes  alise  leges  dirivantur  ab  ea.” — “ The  law  cter- 
“ nal  is  called  the  Jirfl  lazu,  and  well  it  is  called  the  firjl, 
“ for  it  was  before  all  other  laws : and  all  other  laws  arc 
“ derived  from  it.”  In  this  folemn  view  of  the  JirJl  foun- 
dation of  Englifh  law,  it  muft  evidently  be  deemed a 
/ “ witnefs  of  God,”  as  well  as  the  fecond  foundation,  the 

written  word  of  God  in  the  holy  fcriptures : and  both 
foundations  may  well  be  expreflcd  together  by  the  more 
compendious  terms  of  “ natural  and  revealed  religion.” 

In  no  inftance  whatever  are  thefe  “ two  witneftes  of 
“ God”  more  obvioufly  and  undeniably  refifted  than  in 
the  toleration  of  flavery  and  the  Have  trade,  becaufe  they 

are 


[ 6 ■] 


are  iniquities  which  militate  againft  both  foundations,  and 
may  therefore  be  fairly  deemed  an  infallible  touchftone  to 
difcover  the  treachery  of  pretended  loyalifls ; for  no  man 
can  be  truly  loyal  to  God  and  his  country,  who  is  fo  to- 
tally devoid  of  firft  principles,  as  to  favour  flavery!  J.et 
thofe,  who  have  ignorantly  done  fo,  recover  their  credit 
by  redoubled  endeavours  to  reftore  the  honour  and  confti- 
tutional  law  of  their  country,  which  has  been  wounded 
by  their  treacherous  negle£t  of  thefe  foundations  of  law, 
whereby  they  will  otherwife  incur  that  indelible  ftain  of 
infamy  which  our  common  law  defervedly  fixes  on  all  per- 
fons  who  betray  the  law  of  the  land.  “ Legem  term  amit- 
“ tentes  perpetuam  infamias  notam  inde  merito  incurrunt.” 
(3  Inft.  p.  221.) 

But  mark  the  authorities  of  our  common  law  to  this 
purpofe. — “ Liberty”  is  declared  by  the  maxims  of  the 
firft  foundation,  to  be  ineftimable.”  “ Libertas  eft  res  in- 
“ eftimabilis,”  (Jenk.  Cent.  52.)  and  “ liberty  is  the 
“ greateft  jewel.”  (Grounds  and  Rudiments  of  Law  and 
Equity,  p.  1 96.)  And,  therefore  “ cruel  of  necelTity  muft 
“ that  law  be  deemed  which  augmenteth  flavery,  and 
“ diminiflieth  liberty,” — (fays  the  excellent  and  worthy 
chancellor  Fortefeu,  who  in  very  dark  times  of  prevail- 
ing beftial  power,  nobly  afterted  the  fupreme  immutable 
authority  of  God’s  two  witneflTes,  as  manifefted  in  the  firft 
principles  of  our  Englifli  common  law,  or  legal  conftitu- 
tion.)  “ For  in  behalf  of  liberty,”  (fays  he)  “ human 
“ nature  always  implores,”  (or  folicits  favour)  “ becaufe 
“ flavery  is  introduced  by  man.,  and  for  vice ; but  liberty 
“ is  implanted  by  God  in  the  very  nature  of  juan ; where- 
“ fore  when  ifolen  by  man,  it  always  earneftly  longs  to 
“ return,  as  does  every  thing  which  is  deprived  of  natural 
“ liberty.  For  which  reafon  the  man  who  does  not  favour 
“ liberty  is  to  be  adjudged  impious  and  cruel.**  “ The 
“ laws  of  England  acknowledging  thefe  (principles)  give 

“ favour 


C 7 ]• 


“ favour  to  liberty  in  every  cafe  — A part  of  this  fen- 

tence  is  cited  by  Lord  Coke  as  a maxim  of  our  common 
law — “ Impiiis  et  crudelis  judicandm  eft  qui  liberiati  non 
favetf  (Co.  Lit.  124.)  viz.  “ Impious  and  cruel  is 
“ the  man  to  be  adjudged  who  does  not  favour  liberty.” 
The  oppofite  condition,  therefore,  to  liberty^  v\x.  Jlavery, 
is  properly  declared  by  one  of  our  oldeft  Englilli  authori- 
ties in  law',  Fleta,  to  be  “ contrary  to  nature,”  f (Fleta, 
2d  edit.  p.  1.)  which  expreflion  of  Fleta  is  really  a maxim 
of  the  civil  or  Roman  law,  (fee  Infit.  Lib.  i.  tit.  3.  leg.  2.) 
and  tho’  fuch  appeals  in  the  Roman  code  to  the  founda- 
tions of  law  could  not  reftrain  the  belluina  poteftas  of  Ro- 
man tyranny  in  any  of  the  ten  kingdoms  of  the  beaft,  as 
clearly  foretold  in  the  feriptures,  nor  prevent  improper  ad- 
ditions to  the  code,  under  the  name  of  law,  yet  furely  the 
friends  pf  liberty  may  be  thankful  to  the  Juftinian  code 
for  the  authority  of  its  teftimony  againft  flavery  : for 
w'hen  the  two  firft  foundations  of  law  lhall  hereafter  be 
reftored,  through  God’s  mercy,  to  their  due  power  and 
effedl — w'hen  thefe  “ two  witneffes  of  God  lhall  Hand  upon 
their  feet,  and  afeend  into  heaven,”  i.  e. — be  eftablilhed 
above  all  human  authority,  and  be  acknowledged  as  the 
irrefiftible  will  of  God,  which  mull  “ be  done  on  earth  as 
“ it  is  in  heaven  ;”  then  lhall  our  deluded  ftatefmen,  law- 
yers, commercial  politicians,  and  planters,  be  compelled 
to  underftand  that  a more  forcible  expreflion  of  illegality 

and 


* “ Crudelis  eiiam  necellario  judicabitur  lex,  qui  fervitutem  aug- 
mentat,  et  minuit  libertator.  Kain  pro  ca  natura  Temper  implo- 
“ rat  humana.  Quia  ab  liomine  et  pro  vicio  introducta  e(l  Jsrvitus. 
“ Sed  hbertas  a Deo  hominis  e(l  indita  naturs.  Quare  ipfa  ab  ho- 
mine  Tublata  Temper  redire  gliTcit,  ut  Tacit  omne  quod  Hbertate 
naturale  privatur.  Qtio  impius  et  crudelis  jitdicaudus  ejl  qui  liber- 
“ tati  non  favst.  Haec  confiderantia  anglise  jura  /«  osuisi  cafu  libertati 
dant  favorem,”  (Chanc.  fort,  de  Laiidibus  Leguin  Anglijc,  c.  42. 
P-  JOJ-)  ^ ...  . 

f “ Eft  quidem  fervitus,  libertati  contrarian; ; item  conftitntio 
“ queedam  de  jure  gentium  qua  quis  domino”  (or  rather  “dominio”) 
“ alieno  «/;/»•«  fubjicitur,”  &c.  (r'leta,  2d  edit.  p.  i.) 


[ 8 ] 


and  iniquity  could  not  haA'e  been  ufed  than  that  by  which 
fla'vsry  is  defined  in  the  Roman  code,  as  well  as  by  our 
EnglilhFleta — i.  e.  that  it  is  “ contra  naturam’’ — “ ngainjl 

nature’’ — for  confequently  it  mufi:  be  utterly  illegal, 
a crime  which  by  the  firft  foundation  of  Englifii  law 
is  juftly  deemed  both  impious  and  cruel ; and  which,  in 
the  ftrong  figurative  language  of  God’s  prophets,  under 
the  fecond  foundation  of  our  law,  is  compared  to  the 
guilt  of  cannibalifm  (or  eating  human  flelh)  as  I have 
Ihewed,  in  my  remonftrance  to  the  citizens  of  London  * 
and  therefore  this  unnatural  crime  of  llavery,  and  the 
flave  trade,  mud;  neceflarily  be  deemed,  like  all  other 
unnatural  crimes,  deteftable,  abominable,  and  damnable, 
both  to  the  fouls  and  bodies  of  all  that  wilfully  promote 
them ! The  feverity  of  thefe  exprellions  cannot  be  reftrain- 
ed  without  injuRice  to  the  high  authorities  on  which  this 
argument  is  founded. 

It  would  be  an  awful  enquiry  to  trace  the  time  when 
the  Englifh  nation  was  rendered  obnoxious,  by  flavery, 
to  the  application  of  thefe  horrible  epithets,  impious, 
cruel,  he.  and  it  is  wonderful  how  the  unnatural  crime 
could  fo  long  be  overlooked  until  ufage  and  cuftom  had 
eftablilhed  in  all  the  Britifh  colonies,  as  a right,  this  enor- 
mous wrong,  to  the  perverfion  of  all  legal  terms,  efpe- 
cially  as  the  fetting  afide  the  foundations  of  law,  is  pro- 
perly deemed,  in  the  Englifh  conftitution,  an  abdication 
of  government  (“  non  enim  eft  rex  ubi  dominatur  volun- 
“ tas  et  non  lex”)  “ there  is  no  king  where  will  governs 
“ and  not  law,”  an  allowed  maxim  of  the  Englifh  con- 
ftitution, fo  long  ago  as  the  reign  of  king  Henry  II.  (fee 
Bradon  and  P'leta.)  We  cannot  therefore  fuppofe  that 
the  toleration  of  flavery  in  the  colonies,  (which,  accord- 
ing to  the  conftitutional  principles  of  Englifh  government, 
muft  undermine  the  king’s  right  to  reign  there,  or  in 
any  other  place,  where  by  an  illegal  affent  he  has  efta- 
blilhed 

* See  the  parts  marked  witlt  red  ink,  In  the  London  edition  of  the 
faid  remonflrance,  pages  8,  9,  10. 


[ 9 ] 

bliflied  a fundamental  corruption  of  the  conftltulional  law ; 
we  cannot,  I fay,  conceive)  that  the  admiffion  of  flavery 
has  been  intentional  on  the  part  of  government  at  home, 
but  merely  through  want  of  a fixed  attention  to  the  two 
firft  principles  of  law  and  religion.  But  the  fworn  judges 
of  the  colonial  courts  are  without  excufe,  for  permitting 
the  evil  of  flavery  to  take  root,  without  warning  their  roy- 
al mailers  of  the  illegality,  knowing  that  the  kings  are 
bound  by  the  conllitutional  law  of  the  kingdom  “ to 
■*'’  “ deny  jullice  to  no  man,”  without  exception,  (“  nulii 

“ negabimus  aut  dilferemus  jullitiam,”  Magna  Charta ;) 
and  knowing  that  they  themfelves  are  fworn  “ to  do  jullice 
“ and  judgment,  without  refpeft  of  perfons  — and  alfo, 
that  under  a legal  Englilh  government  there  can  be  but 
one  law  for  all  defcriptions  of  perfons,  according  to  two 
excellent  maxims  of  the  firll  foundations,  * and  confc- 
quently,  that  without  national  reprobacy,  there  could  be  no 
fuch  perfonal  dillinftions  in  law,  as  flave-holder  and  Have,  fo 
that  they  mull  be  bound  in  duty  to  their  king  and  country 
i to  prevent,  in  the  king’s  name,  any  fuch  oppreflion  as  flave- 
holding.  They  ought  to  have  known  that  the  limited 
temporal  permiflion  which  had  been  granted  to  the  Ifrael- 
ites  to  hold  Haves,  was  abfolutely  annulled  by  a fubfequent 
command  of  God  “ to  let  the  opprelTed  go  free,”  and 
“ to  break  every  yoke,”  (Ifaiah  viii.  5,  6.)  There  is  no 
exception  to  this  command,  which  proves  that  a total  abo- 
lition of  flavery  was  at  that  time  the  declared  will  of  God, 
which  is  mil  more  clearly  demonllrated  by  a future  denun- 
ciation agalnll  the  praftice  of  Have-holders,  by  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah,  jull  before  the  Ifraelites  themfelves  were  to 
be  carried  into  flavery,  for  their  opprelfions  and  negledl  of 
God’s  laws.  “ Woe  be  to  him  that  ufeth  his  neighbour’s 
“ fervice  without  wages,  and  giveth  him  not  for  his  work.” 

B Thefe 

* Turpis  eft  pars  qux  non  convcnit  cum  fuo  toto” — and,  nihil  in 
lege  “ intolerabilius  eft  eandem  rem  diverfo  jure  cenferi,”  (Ground 
and  Rudiments  of  Law  and  Equity,  No.  307.) 


C 3 

Thefe  are  moraltlaws  of  eternal  obligation,  (though  deli- 
vered by  two  prophets  of  the  Old  Teftament)  becaufe  the 
reafon,  juftice  and  mercy  of  them  are  ftill  obvious ; for 
“ the  reafon  of  the  law  is  the  life  of  the  law.”  “ Ratio 
“ legis  eft  anima  legis.”  And  therefore  furely  “ Woe 
“ is  moft  alarmingly  due  to  all  governments,  or  pretend- 
“ ed  legal  eftablifliments,  which  fandfion  fuch  notorious 
“ injuftice  and  oppreflion !” 

For  many  years  the  kings  of  England  have  unwaringly 
been  induced  by  their  minifters  and  privy  council,  for 
mere  political  reafons  of  finance  or  commerce,  to  fandion 
colonial  laws  which  have  been  utterly  inconfiftent  with 
the  two  firft  foundations  of  Englifh  law : but  thefe  two 
witneftes  of  God  may  now,  in  a more  particular  manner, 
be  laid  to  be  flain  and  lie  dead  before  us  (viz.  a political 
or  civil  death)  ever  fince  the  parliament  itfelf,  (after  the 
moft  earneft  felicitation  and  reprefentation,  by  the  people 
at  large,  of  the  enormous  iniquity  of  the  flave  trade,  for 
more  than  three  years)  have,  at  laft,  refufed  redrefs ! 
Their  examination  of  witneftes  will  afford  them  no  excufe, 
becaufe  no  other  witneftes  were  neceftary,  in  this  peculiar 
cafe,  than  the  two  fundamental  witneftes  of  the  Englilh 
law,  which, are  fo  indifpenfible  to  conftitute  a legal  go- 
vernment, that  no  man  can  be  qualified  to'adt  as  a legif- 
lator  (nor  even  to  exercife  the  eledtion  franchife)  who 
does  not  acknowledge  their  fupreme  authority.  It  is  a 
teft  which  is  now  become  obvioufly  neceftary ! 

After  fuch  a total  difregard  of  the  very  foundations  of 
the  Englifh  conftitution  by  the  legiflature,  as  may  fairly 
be  deemed  a civil  death  of  thefe  two  witneftes,  we  have 
not  only  to  dread  the  infamy  incurred,  according  to  the 
maxim  “ Legem  terra;  amittentes,”  &c.  but  alfe  to  look 
for  divine  retribution  from  him  who  has  promifed  “ to 
“ deftroy  the  deftroyers  of  the  earth,”  and  “ to  lead  in- 
“ to  captivity  thofe  that  led  into  captivity.”  And  indeed 
after  the  moft  careful  inveftigation  of  all  the  prophetical 
marks  of  the  antichriftian  beaft,  and  its  image,  compared 

with 


C •'  ] 


-with  preceding  times,  according  to  the  beft  chronological 
hiftories,  1 am  convinced  that  the  acdomplilhment  of  the 
tyranny  (not  by  human  means,  but  “ without  hand,”) 
muft  be  nearly  approaching ! The  divine  vengeance  feems 
ready  to  be  poured  upon  us ! 

Let  not  the  inhabitants  of  Maryland  and  Carolina  con- 
ceive, that  becaufe  their  territories  are  not  included  with- 
in the  bounds  of  the  four  great  monarchies,  the  theatre  of 
the  prophetical  examples  of  divine  vengeance,  they  fliall 
be  lefs  liable  to  the  awful  effefts  of  it!  for,  be  alfured,  that 
when  the  ten  kingdoms  of  bellial  Roman  government  are 
deftroycd,  the  will  of  God,  as  exprefled  in  the  two  foun- 
dations of  Englilh  law,  natural  and  revealed  religion  (God’s 
two  witnefles)  will  certainly  be  eftablilhed  “ on  earth  as  it 
“ is  in  heaven,”  according  to  the  univerfal  prayer  of  the 
Chriftian  Church ; nay  it  will  be  eftablilhed  “ under  the 
“ whole  heaven,”  (Daniel  vii.  27.)  So  that  the  only  ef- 
fectual means  of  avoiding  this  univerfal  deftruclion  of  be- 
ftial  illegality  is,  to  acknowledge,  reverence  and  eftablilh 
the  two  firft  foundations  of  Englilh  law  above  all  other 
f'  authorities ; for  that  muft  be  the  univerfal  effedt  of  the 
kingdom  of  Chrift  on  earth. 

If  the  legillators  and  lawyers  of  Maryland  and  the  Ca- 
rolinas  lhall  be  able  to  fuggeft  any  thing  like  an  argu- 
ment in  oppofition  to  the  high  legal  authorities  which  I have 
cited,  they  muft  have  more  fubtile  heads,  and  worfe  hearts, 
than  I am  willing  to  attribute  to  any  one,  who  is  not  ob- 
vioully  aftuated  by  the  grand  fpiritual  enemy  of  man  ! 

G R A N V I L L E S H A R P, 

fi, 

Garden-Court.,  Temple,  London. 


F 


INIS. 


V*  ' • • a' 

«■-  i.y-,'-,' 

S--  ' . ■ ^...- 

■’^  s .it  ft 

"•‘r ^ t 

Utr  ,.'  . v;  s,.-'.*' 

. ■ ; -,«  ...•■  ■■-  ■•y-:-,  ,•  * ;••♦ 

‘ : " -r  -,  - •-  r^. 

. , ■■'/'•■  ■-..  • • - ^ 

.■  V-‘'  ■ . - ' ft.  '^-  ' j 


.. 


I **  * 

r ' 

. I H* 


?V^'  ■ ■ 


-V 


v».'. 

-?  ■ •*>>=■,»  •■ 


•<  • 

s • 


Jr 


% 

. ^ . .- 
i r’.  • , . 

. <-  •■*•  • -v*^;  •«“■ 

. •-■  _v*  ^ 


A.  4 


y.r.  ~ ,»'■■■• 


• . ,MK  am  p 


-liK 


- 'T>  -.  *we  - 

-v‘^“‘  . •'■  - Ss 


•af'^ 


P’  : ■ , ..  • v:  >v-: 

r?:\,  . w 

r'-?5.  .V .,  > vx 

• • /’  •.  • - r-Y  VA.-tf.,  .'-*_*  r'^U  ^ -V?  -^'-»  i 


M /iMf  r • ^ W**-' 


- '■, 


^ . 

v^-.y:  'V  ’ 


X.  » r.  ^ 


.•- / ’.  ■ ' !)',  ■ “ . • -.  , • ‘i0 


A.,',: 


4 


m 


h vS;^ 

K,-»a. 

Sg’ 

